Anyone who think renewables can replace fossil fuels does not understand the limits of renewables. These are their exceptionally low energy density and the intermittency of the most energy dense form for renewable, namely solar.
The low energy density means that huge amounts of land and materials are required to capture renewable energy. The public will not accept this as the impacts will be worse than those of continuing to burn fossil fuels.
The huge amount of energy required to make and install solar PV is so high that it is not clear that they can generate more energy than is required to make them, at least when installed in higher latitudes (north of the Alps).
The intermittency is a problem because there is affordable way of storing this energy on the required scale. Batteries are still over a 100 times to expensive and there are upper limits in how much they could store.
The total failure of any country or region to replace fossil fuels with intermittent renewables should serve as a warning but it seems the pro-renewable lobby are incredibly effective at hiding these failures.
There really is only one proven way to eliminated fossil fuels, and that is nuclear power. This is expensive but only because it is regulated in an insane way. It could be far cheaper than fossil fuels if we valued deaths nuclear energy the same as deaths from other energy sources. At the moment we value them at least 100 times more, which is irrational.
As a fairly neutral/“civilian” observer of this debate, I agree that Rogers heavy reliance on the French nuclear example comes across as disingenuous and unconvincing. What we are being sold is the idea that it is practically possible for *renewables* plus batteries to massively reduce use of all fossil fuels (not just coal) within our lifetimes. Is this true or is it not?
It’s a pretty straightforward question, at least to give your opinion on. Alex Epstein gives his view very clearly. Roger seems more slippery and evasive.
The required energy transition cannot proceed as fast as climate alarmism claims it should (which is another topic).
One thing that advocates and protesters never consider seriously is that all energy to be used to achieve decarbonization cannot be limited to non-fossil sources. Solar panels, wind turbines, etc. must have a large fossil content. Otherwise, it would take forever to achieve the transition.
In addition, all promotions of electric vehicles and heat pumps need more electricity that is neither available nor planned to be available before quite a long time. These promotions and subsidies are premature and irresponsible because they are truly off the mark.
Whether you like them or not is not the point, fossil fuel reserves are a necessary mean by which the world can eventually get defossilized. This is why more exploration and production are required.
To prevent any sh**storm, I declare that I have no conflict of interest with any energy-related sector (other than my modest personal and home consumption).
I remain skeptical that expanding nuclear will make more than just a small dent in fossil fuel consumption. Nuclear electricity has arguably the highest capital cost, highest operating cost, highest regulatory hurdles, longest construction time and least political support of any non-fossil fuel energy source.
I've read a third of Fossil Future and so far you're point: 'Epstein’s argument conflates correlation with causation and also means with ends.' is most evident by insisting on the trope that fossil fuels (and only fossil fuels) can cause and sustain our high achievement in material and economic progress .
I wish Epstein had given this work to a good editor who have cut back the thicket of arguments and maintain his central argument. Surely the thicket could added as addenda in support of hi main thrust.
I haven't read Alex's new book but I read his original book and many of his essays and op-eds. I personally believe that unless we get our act together on nuclear we WILL need more fossil fuels in the future to maintain and spread (to undeveloped countries) the lifestyle we have become accustomed to.
Substantial fossil fuel resources are becoming more difficult to find and more expensive to develop. Policies that disincentivize companies from finding and producing fossil fuels are likely to cause much grief and difficulty in the future.
You write: "I’ve often said that if the IPCC didn’t exist, we’d have to invent it."
Yes, you say that often, and it bugs me every time you say it! ;-)
The IPCC isn't "wrong." They're dishonest. They present pseudoscience as science. If the IPCC didn't exist, we wouldn't "have to invent" an organization that presents pseudoscience as science. We'd invent an organization that presents science as science!
What I'm referring to is something that *I've* said many times, which is that the IPCC scenarios are not simply wrong, they're pseudoscience. The fact that the scenarios don't contain estimates of probability of occurrence renders them completely unfalsifiable, which is an absolutely crucial aspect of science.
If I said that if I release drop a baseball from my hand, it will accelerate towards the earth at 9.8 meters per second per second in one scenario, in another scenario at half that; in another scenario it will float in the air, neither rising nor falling; and in another scenario will shoot up to the moon, I haven't made a scientific prediction, I've just been babbling.
Your "cone of probability" diagram(s) of the situation are a good illustration of what's needed, but the IPCC has ***never*** done that! And it's not like such a "cone of probability" simply can't be constructed. Of course it can! In fact, it's already been done, a long, long time ago.
Tom Wigley and Sarah Raper's paper in Science (Interpretation of High Projections for Global-Mean Warming) way back in 2001 did that. The significant problem with their paper was that they made the ridiculous assumption that all IPCC scenarios had equal probability of occurrence.
As I noted in the postscript of that 2017 post on my blog: "What is surprising to me is that the Wigley and Raper paper was published in Science magazine, and it predicts that there is less than 1 in 20 chance (i.e., a 5% probability) that emissions in the 21st century will be more than 713 GtC. Why was this obviously wrong analysis never corrected? Isn't Science interested in...I don't know...science? Perhaps even more surprising is how in 2009 the RCP 8.5 scenario, with emissions of 1932 GtC, was labeled as 'business as usual' and the so-called 'scientific community' has never corrected that obvious nonsense."
The IPCC is not wrong. They are dishonest. We don't need another dishonest organization to replace them, we need an honest organization. We need an organization that will honestly assess probabilities, even if their assessments turn out later to be wrong.
Roger, your own response to Alex's books sounds much more like an argument against fossil fuels (FFs) than a sensible argument in favor of the best, most sensible, affordable and practical sources of energy , especially nuclear, in the context of what we can access right here and now. Why would you argue against the obvious and clear practical benefits of continuing FF use simply because the majority world opinion says we have to wean off of them?
I value your opinions, and have ever since your book "The Rightful Place of Science" laid out the best argument FOR the scientific method which I have read since the days of Hodgkin, Huxley and Katz. But you throw out the baby with the bathwater.
You support today's "policies focused on dramatically reducing fossil fuel consumption ...to try to eliminate their downsides (like pollution, insecurity, and economic risks)," We have already made huge strides in that respect. This is no longer a reason to stop using them, when the need today is to over-ride the idiotic green agenda of stopping their use due to the CO2 that supposedly threatens us all. The CO2 issue is trivial compared to the damaging effects of transitioning to renewables.
Any thoughts on how the just released BP Energy Outlook 2023 advanced the timing on it's projection for oil demand falling vs. the last two years' reports? Do you think that's mostly Europe's scramble/lesson in energy security?
And how the new BP projection now seems to conflict with the recent EIA STEO and the last two IEA World Energy Outlook projections? Just curious for your thoughts on the divergence.
Roger, I find Alex's forecasts of the future entirely consistent with historical data. While France shows the potential for reducing fossil fuels by using nuclear in combination with reducing energy consumption in general, almost the entire rest of the world is doing the opposite. Asia in particular, where a vast amount of CO2 is emitted, has been dramatically increasing its fossil fuel use. Your counter relies on projections about peak fossil fuel made by IEA. But there is much reason to doubt their projections, which are based on, among other things, promises by China and other governments. They also project substantial take up of EVs and renewables that strain credulity, much less recent real world results. All in all, I find Alex's projections at least as plausible as IEA's.
I came across your review of Fossil Future on Twitter and became a paid subscriber to your Substack simply so I could leave comment as 250 characters on Twitter cannot do the subject justice. I had to ask myself if we read the same Fossil Future; I don’t think we did. For brevity’s sake I’ll focus on what I find most misleading in your review, the assertion that Mr. Epstein doesn’t give nuclear its due by not mentioning France’s example of embracing nuclear power for electricity generation. There are many other assertions with which a knowledge energy policy person, or any unbiased observer who read the book, could take issue.
It is true that Mr. Epstein does not specifically mention how France has increased nuclear and natural gas (a fossil fuel) and decreased coal and oil in its energy mix since 1965; your chart clearly shows this. But you imply that Fossil Future is not pro-nuclear as an alternative to fossil fuels and this is simply neither honest or credible if you’ve read the book.
The index of Fossil Future has nearly a page of references to nuclear energy, 21 references in all, many of which are multiple pages. There is even a section titled, “The Suppressed Potential of Nuclear Energy.” Mr. Epstein is a cheerleader for “decriminalizing” nuclear energy and in no way down plays the potential for it to be a cost effective, reliable source of energy that does not produce CO2 or large amounts of harmful waste.
I’d advise anyone who wants to get an alternative perspective from the conventional anti-fossil fuel, anti-human flourishing narrative to pick up a copy of Fossil Future. Any objective observer will find the text nothing like how you portray it in your review.
Wayne Stoltenberg
Former CFO: Vine Energy Inc (NYSE:VEI)
Chairman of the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI)
Published on Energy Policy in WSJ, Dallas Morning News, San Antonio News Express
Partial replacement beyond 50% seems unlikely. Base load should be coal or nukes, gas is way too valuable and must be saved for demand peaking only. Alex is more correct than Roger in this one. Missing affordability and national security from the discussion makes it a very weak piece. I look forward to the Climate stuff from Roger as it does tend to be sober and objective. Thanks
Anyone who think renewables can replace fossil fuels does not understand the limits of renewables. These are their exceptionally low energy density and the intermittency of the most energy dense form for renewable, namely solar.
The low energy density means that huge amounts of land and materials are required to capture renewable energy. The public will not accept this as the impacts will be worse than those of continuing to burn fossil fuels.
The huge amount of energy required to make and install solar PV is so high that it is not clear that they can generate more energy than is required to make them, at least when installed in higher latitudes (north of the Alps).
The intermittency is a problem because there is affordable way of storing this energy on the required scale. Batteries are still over a 100 times to expensive and there are upper limits in how much they could store.
The total failure of any country or region to replace fossil fuels with intermittent renewables should serve as a warning but it seems the pro-renewable lobby are incredibly effective at hiding these failures.
There really is only one proven way to eliminated fossil fuels, and that is nuclear power. This is expensive but only because it is regulated in an insane way. It could be far cheaper than fossil fuels if we valued deaths nuclear energy the same as deaths from other energy sources. At the moment we value them at least 100 times more, which is irrational.
Great discussion.
FYI, from 2000 to 2021, 32 countries reduced their overall fossil fuel consumption
While growing their economies
France is one of them
As a fairly neutral/“civilian” observer of this debate, I agree that Rogers heavy reliance on the French nuclear example comes across as disingenuous and unconvincing. What we are being sold is the idea that it is practically possible for *renewables* plus batteries to massively reduce use of all fossil fuels (not just coal) within our lifetimes. Is this true or is it not?
It’s a pretty straightforward question, at least to give your opinion on. Alex Epstein gives his view very clearly. Roger seems more slippery and evasive.
You think Teslas always existed? The only transportation most people had for over a century used an ICE and for most people that is still the case.
Unless of course you think we went straight from horses to Teslas. That's about the level that your comments have been at.
FYI
I have engaged Epstein on Twitter starting here:
https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1621558134149095424?s=20&t=WJZwte06e0PimF_I51u0Wg
He has so far ignored a simple question related to his claim that the world requires more coal to achieve human flourishing
Obviously, the world does not need more coal to achieve human flourishing
He'd have been much better off not making this argument, obviously
Let's see if he engages
The required energy transition cannot proceed as fast as climate alarmism claims it should (which is another topic).
One thing that advocates and protesters never consider seriously is that all energy to be used to achieve decarbonization cannot be limited to non-fossil sources. Solar panels, wind turbines, etc. must have a large fossil content. Otherwise, it would take forever to achieve the transition.
In addition, all promotions of electric vehicles and heat pumps need more electricity that is neither available nor planned to be available before quite a long time. These promotions and subsidies are premature and irresponsible because they are truly off the mark.
Whether you like them or not is not the point, fossil fuel reserves are a necessary mean by which the world can eventually get defossilized. This is why more exploration and production are required.
To prevent any sh**storm, I declare that I have no conflict of interest with any energy-related sector (other than my modest personal and home consumption).
HI All, A great discussion here.
I cannot post images to this comment thread (Grrr)
So I posted up an important on at this Tweet
https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1621529115403894784?s=20&t=XuymkShSGRrXVKJPVbsaUw
Via IEA WEO 2022, it projects that under current policies that global fossil fuel consumption will peak before 2030.
Is such a peak possible? Certainly
Will it happen? Maybe
Is it desirable? Yes
Each of these are different questions, with different implications for evidence and argument.
I remain skeptical that expanding nuclear will make more than just a small dent in fossil fuel consumption. Nuclear electricity has arguably the highest capital cost, highest operating cost, highest regulatory hurdles, longest construction time and least political support of any non-fossil fuel energy source.
I've read a third of Fossil Future and so far you're point: 'Epstein’s argument conflates correlation with causation and also means with ends.' is most evident by insisting on the trope that fossil fuels (and only fossil fuels) can cause and sustain our high achievement in material and economic progress .
I wish Epstein had given this work to a good editor who have cut back the thicket of arguments and maintain his central argument. Surely the thicket could added as addenda in support of hi main thrust.
I haven't read Alex's new book but I read his original book and many of his essays and op-eds. I personally believe that unless we get our act together on nuclear we WILL need more fossil fuels in the future to maintain and spread (to undeveloped countries) the lifestyle we have become accustomed to.
Substantial fossil fuel resources are becoming more difficult to find and more expensive to develop. Policies that disincentivize companies from finding and producing fossil fuels are likely to cause much grief and difficulty in the future.
Hi Roger,
You write: "I’ve often said that if the IPCC didn’t exist, we’d have to invent it."
Yes, you say that often, and it bugs me every time you say it! ;-)
The IPCC isn't "wrong." They're dishonest. They present pseudoscience as science. If the IPCC didn't exist, we wouldn't "have to invent" an organization that presents pseudoscience as science. We'd invent an organization that presents science as science!
What I'm referring to is something that *I've* said many times, which is that the IPCC scenarios are not simply wrong, they're pseudoscience. The fact that the scenarios don't contain estimates of probability of occurrence renders them completely unfalsifiable, which is an absolutely crucial aspect of science.
If I said that if I release drop a baseball from my hand, it will accelerate towards the earth at 9.8 meters per second per second in one scenario, in another scenario at half that; in another scenario it will float in the air, neither rising nor falling; and in another scenario will shoot up to the moon, I haven't made a scientific prediction, I've just been babbling.
Your "cone of probability" diagram(s) of the situation are a good illustration of what's needed, but the IPCC has ***never*** done that! And it's not like such a "cone of probability" simply can't be constructed. Of course it can! In fact, it's already been done, a long, long time ago.
Tom Wigley and Sarah Raper's paper in Science (Interpretation of High Projections for Global-Mean Warming) way back in 2001 did that. The significant problem with their paper was that they made the ridiculous assumption that all IPCC scenarios had equal probability of occurrence.
I corrected that error way back in 2006:
https://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2017/07/mark-bahner-vs-wigley-and-raper-science-2001-vs-ipcc-rcps.html
As I noted in the postscript of that 2017 post on my blog: "What is surprising to me is that the Wigley and Raper paper was published in Science magazine, and it predicts that there is less than 1 in 20 chance (i.e., a 5% probability) that emissions in the 21st century will be more than 713 GtC. Why was this obviously wrong analysis never corrected? Isn't Science interested in...I don't know...science? Perhaps even more surprising is how in 2009 the RCP 8.5 scenario, with emissions of 1932 GtC, was labeled as 'business as usual' and the so-called 'scientific community' has never corrected that obvious nonsense."
The IPCC is not wrong. They are dishonest. We don't need another dishonest organization to replace them, we need an honest organization. We need an organization that will honestly assess probabilities, even if their assessments turn out later to be wrong.
Roger, your own response to Alex's books sounds much more like an argument against fossil fuels (FFs) than a sensible argument in favor of the best, most sensible, affordable and practical sources of energy , especially nuclear, in the context of what we can access right here and now. Why would you argue against the obvious and clear practical benefits of continuing FF use simply because the majority world opinion says we have to wean off of them?
I value your opinions, and have ever since your book "The Rightful Place of Science" laid out the best argument FOR the scientific method which I have read since the days of Hodgkin, Huxley and Katz. But you throw out the baby with the bathwater.
You support today's "policies focused on dramatically reducing fossil fuel consumption ...to try to eliminate their downsides (like pollution, insecurity, and economic risks)," We have already made huge strides in that respect. This is no longer a reason to stop using them, when the need today is to over-ride the idiotic green agenda of stopping their use due to the CO2 that supposedly threatens us all. The CO2 issue is trivial compared to the damaging effects of transitioning to renewables.
Great post, Roger.
Any thoughts on how the just released BP Energy Outlook 2023 advanced the timing on it's projection for oil demand falling vs. the last two years' reports? Do you think that's mostly Europe's scramble/lesson in energy security?
And how the new BP projection now seems to conflict with the recent EIA STEO and the last two IEA World Energy Outlook projections? Just curious for your thoughts on the divergence.
Roger, I find Alex's forecasts of the future entirely consistent with historical data. While France shows the potential for reducing fossil fuels by using nuclear in combination with reducing energy consumption in general, almost the entire rest of the world is doing the opposite. Asia in particular, where a vast amount of CO2 is emitted, has been dramatically increasing its fossil fuel use. Your counter relies on projections about peak fossil fuel made by IEA. But there is much reason to doubt their projections, which are based on, among other things, promises by China and other governments. They also project substantial take up of EVs and renewables that strain credulity, much less recent real world results. All in all, I find Alex's projections at least as plausible as IEA's.
I came across your review of Fossil Future on Twitter and became a paid subscriber to your Substack simply so I could leave comment as 250 characters on Twitter cannot do the subject justice. I had to ask myself if we read the same Fossil Future; I don’t think we did. For brevity’s sake I’ll focus on what I find most misleading in your review, the assertion that Mr. Epstein doesn’t give nuclear its due by not mentioning France’s example of embracing nuclear power for electricity generation. There are many other assertions with which a knowledge energy policy person, or any unbiased observer who read the book, could take issue.
It is true that Mr. Epstein does not specifically mention how France has increased nuclear and natural gas (a fossil fuel) and decreased coal and oil in its energy mix since 1965; your chart clearly shows this. But you imply that Fossil Future is not pro-nuclear as an alternative to fossil fuels and this is simply neither honest or credible if you’ve read the book.
The index of Fossil Future has nearly a page of references to nuclear energy, 21 references in all, many of which are multiple pages. There is even a section titled, “The Suppressed Potential of Nuclear Energy.” Mr. Epstein is a cheerleader for “decriminalizing” nuclear energy and in no way down plays the potential for it to be a cost effective, reliable source of energy that does not produce CO2 or large amounts of harmful waste.
I’d advise anyone who wants to get an alternative perspective from the conventional anti-fossil fuel, anti-human flourishing narrative to pick up a copy of Fossil Future. Any objective observer will find the text nothing like how you portray it in your review.
Wayne Stoltenberg
Former CFO: Vine Energy Inc (NYSE:VEI)
Chairman of the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI)
Published on Energy Policy in WSJ, Dallas Morning News, San Antonio News Express
Partial replacement beyond 50% seems unlikely. Base load should be coal or nukes, gas is way too valuable and must be saved for demand peaking only. Alex is more correct than Roger in this one. Missing affordability and national security from the discussion makes it a very weak piece. I look forward to the Climate stuff from Roger as it does tend to be sober and objective. Thanks